Rank: Forum user 
|
I am about to train individuals to undertake risk assessments based on the activities they are connected with. For those activities which offer only a negligible risk I am telling them not to do a risk assessment; Without going into detail the activities which are negligible nature are strikingly obvious, therefore only activities which present a significant risk will be assessed.
I know in my own mind the difference between negligble risk and signficant risk but it is making sure they do. I have looked at the legal definition but it is a bit fluffly in its interpretation.
Can anyone explain to me how to get the message across is a crystal clear, simple way on the term 'significant risk'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think the best way is by examples. You could give a couple of examples first (from your workplace) of negligible and significant risk, then produce a few more examples and ask the trainees to identify which are which - being prepared to discuss if their perceptions are different from yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Richard
There is an element of subjectivity associated with risk and specifically risk assessment which makes the task difficult to explain. I agree with Kate, the best way forward is to show some examples of low, medium and high risk activities. Perhaps a short presentation with photos and asking your audience to write down what they think the risk is (controlled/uncontrolled) and then discussing any anomalies.
Ironically, if we as health and safety practitioners did the same exercise we would then stop risk assessing slips, trips and falls, leptospirosis, etc. Hey ho.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Why the mystery... RA is simple.. The new hsg65 suggests a gap analysis against the large amount of hse guidance... Please no more matrices... Focus on what can you do to lower the level of risk..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thomas26098 wrote:Why the mystery... RA is simple.. The new hsg65 suggests a gap analysis against the large amount of hse guidance... Please no more matrices... Focus on what can you do to lower the level of risk..
Not a scooby doo what your post is trying to say or what relevance it has to the original question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rayrapp wrote:Richard
Ironically, if we as health and safety practitioners did the same exercise we would then stop risk assessing slips, trips and falls, leptospirosis, etc. Hey ho.
Ray
Lepto is a real risk in the industries I work in. Had several clients contract it recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Rayrapp... We get hung up on definitions on words... The question was about 'significant risk' ... In the waste collection industry we have significant guidance ..and would suggest that significant risk is where you are not following the guidance. If you look at wish guidance on safe collection guidance the the high medium and low criteria don't fit.
Look at the she guidance 5 steps.I stopped ranking 5 years ago...it's an old methodology
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sorry predictive text... HSE
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Claire
Obviously you must work in a rural industry like farming, fishing, etc. Even so, the risk of developing a serious infection like Weil's disease is very rare.
The fact is for most people they have more chance of getting struck by lightening than they do contracting Leptospirosis. Indeed, information from the NHS - 'Leptospirosis is rare in the UK. For example, only 44 cases were reported in England and Wales during 2011. Of these, 15 cases originated overseas and none were fatal.'
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You don't state the nature of the workplace so difficult to comment constructively.
In general terms it may be relatively simple to differentiate between significant and insignificant risk when looking at physical hazards. It is not so simple when looking at chemical hazards. Firstly, the effect of exposure may be chronic, so the effect may not be obvious unless you have a good knowledge of what can happen over time as a result of the exposure. Secondly, as I feel I have stated ad nauseam on this forum, the hazard from a chemical is not always obvious and can change as the chemical is used. Perhaps this is a reason why wet work, i.e. exposure to water, is still the most common cause of occupational contact dermatitis, water frequently not being identified as a hazard.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Rayrapp wrote:
Obviously you must work in a rural industry like farming, fishing, etc. Even so, the risk of developing a serious infection like Weil's disease is very rare.
I have several teams at the moment who are inspecting and assessing drainage (including failed drainage) in and around overground and underground rail stations and tunnels. So that's people crawling around under station platforms and puddles of stagnant water. I think the risk of lepto infection is rather greater than being struck by lightning in these circumstances.
Which is surely the point of risk assessment - saying 'I won't do a risk assessment for lepto because the risk is so small' is surely an oxymoron - if you know the risk is small, it's because you've done a risk assessment. It's like saying " I won't look before crossing the road because I looked and there's no cars coming", isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rayrapp wrote:Ironically, if we as health and safety practitioners did the same exercise we would then stop risk assessing slips, trips and falls
Really?
I can think of few industries / workplaces where this wouldn't be a risk worthy of risk assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:Rayrapp wrote:
Obviously you must work in a rural industry like farming, fishing, etc. Even so, the risk of developing a serious infection like Weil's disease is very rare.
I have several teams at the moment who are inspecting and assessing drainage (including failed drainage) in and around overground and underground rail stations and tunnels. So that's people crawling around under station platforms and puddles of stagnant water. I think the risk of lepto infection is rather greater than being struck by lightning in these circumstances.
Which is surely the point of risk assessment - saying 'I won't do a risk assessment for lepto because the risk is so small' is surely an oxymoron - if you know the risk is small, it's because you've done a risk assessment. It's like saying " I won't look before crossing the road because I looked and there's no cars coming", isn't it?
Possibly, but the facts in my earlier post suggest that even in higher risk inductries like utilities the risk is still relatively low.
Assessing a risk and completing a formal risk assessment are two different issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jake wrote:Rayrapp wrote:Ironically, if we as health and safety practitioners did the same exercise we would then stop risk assessing slips, trips and falls
Really?
I can think of few industries / workplaces where this wouldn't be a risk worthy of risk assessment.
Jake, I agree. However, virtually all RAs contain our old friend slips, trips and falls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.